TexasSeaRay
New member
House passes restrictions on First Amendment, Senate expected to approve measures.
By Marilyn Smith
WASHINGTON DC (Reuters) - In a highly unusual and sure to be controversial move, the House of Reprsentatives voted in the late hours Saturday to place restrictions on the First Amendment. Senior aides in the U.S. Senate expect the Senate to approve the measures before the end of the year.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one U.S. Representative told Reuters that the restrictions voted on were almost universally agreed upon by his fellow members in the House. "Based on information we've been receiving from the FBI and overseas intelligence sources, we believe that going into the elections next year, America's enemies will use our 'freedom of the press' to conspire more attacks against innocent civilians. Our bill is intended to stop that dead in its tracks."
HR2213 was passed overwhelmingly just minutes after midnight. The bill places restrictions on what kind of access Americans will have to virtually all measures of news, opinion gathering and discussions here in the United States. The bill only affects citizens and those with legal resident status. It does not affect foreign visitors, dignitaries or embassies.
Sure to be highly controversial and almost guaranteed to be challenged in the federal courts, HR2213 will require that all U.S. citizens and legal residents be required to give proof of identity before purchasing newspapers, news magazines or any other sort of printed news materials. The bill does not differentiate between local community-based media and national media.
For electronic media, the bill requires that cable and satellite TV providers screen all customers and compile a database that will be safeguarded by a new division within the Department of Homeland Security. The database will be crosschecked with databases compiled by the FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. Individuals or citizens whose profile makes them suspect to sympathizing or supporting terrorist actions will be interviewed by the agents from either DHS or FBI. If cleared, the individual is free to continue with their normal cable services. If not cleared, access to news channels will be denied.
The electronic media restrictions are expected to begin by the end of January 2008. The restrictions on broadcast and printed media are expected to take longer to be fully enacted. The House is hoping for voluntary compliance initially, but DHS is prepared to begin witholding federal funds from any states who resist or challenge the bill. House leaders are drafting communications to all fifty governors explaining the bill.
For printed media, the bill calls for all publications to eventually move to a subscriber-only basis by 2009. Until then, those who wish to buy printed media such as newspapers, news magazines, tabloids or any other forms of printed news will simply fill out a brief background information form online. Homeland Security officials expect the background approval to take no longer than ninety minutes. At the completion, if the applicant passes, a PDF e-mail is sent containing a barcode and the applicant's name and social security number. The purchaser presents this small, driver's license size approval ID to the retailer who in turn scans it at the register.
Civil libertarians who only discovered the bill and its passage hours ago are furious. "What's next, a background check for which church or snyagogue someone wants to attend or tithe to?" asked Rudolph Heitzman of the Baltimore American Civil Liberties Union. "I wonder what our Founding Fathers would have to say about this," Heitzman added, noting that "but according to this ridiculous, unconstitutional bill, we'd need a background check first in order to read or hear what our founders would have to say." Heitzman promised an immeidate lawsuit and filing in U.S. District Court first thing next week.
Another House source told Reuters that restrictions on the Constitution and Bill of Rights are nothing new. "We've been making common sense restrictions and changes to the Bill of Rights for the last sixty years," the source who wished to not be identified pointed out. "Very few people complained when we enacted seizure laws to help fight organized crime. A few did initially, but I think they've grown to accept that drastic times require drastic measures."
in the recent years since the World Trade Center attacks, polls conducted by numerous researchers indicated that most Americans were willing to take up increased restrictions on personal liberties and privileges if it meant making things harder for terrorists and criminals. House sources point to this data as the inevitable result of last night's passage of HR2213.
"Americans are tired of living in fear," the House source stated. "We know that our enemies often get much of their information from media sources. In order to safeguard against that, we need to know who is reading what and then learn more about them. Is it a Herculean task? Of course it is, but if you're not a criminal or a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about."
# # # # #
I got the idea for this story based upon this poll, taken right here at TFL. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271838
Amazing that around half or more of the respondents have no problem with restrictions on Constitutionally guaranteed rights. So how would you feel about having to have a national ID card in order to buy a newspaper, subscribe to any sort of news/informational publication and know that your television viewing is being monitored and recorded "all in the interest of national security?"
For me, that thought is scary as hell. But I guess some of you don't mind at all.
Jeff
By Marilyn Smith
WASHINGTON DC (Reuters) - In a highly unusual and sure to be controversial move, the House of Reprsentatives voted in the late hours Saturday to place restrictions on the First Amendment. Senior aides in the U.S. Senate expect the Senate to approve the measures before the end of the year.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one U.S. Representative told Reuters that the restrictions voted on were almost universally agreed upon by his fellow members in the House. "Based on information we've been receiving from the FBI and overseas intelligence sources, we believe that going into the elections next year, America's enemies will use our 'freedom of the press' to conspire more attacks against innocent civilians. Our bill is intended to stop that dead in its tracks."
HR2213 was passed overwhelmingly just minutes after midnight. The bill places restrictions on what kind of access Americans will have to virtually all measures of news, opinion gathering and discussions here in the United States. The bill only affects citizens and those with legal resident status. It does not affect foreign visitors, dignitaries or embassies.
Sure to be highly controversial and almost guaranteed to be challenged in the federal courts, HR2213 will require that all U.S. citizens and legal residents be required to give proof of identity before purchasing newspapers, news magazines or any other sort of printed news materials. The bill does not differentiate between local community-based media and national media.
For electronic media, the bill requires that cable and satellite TV providers screen all customers and compile a database that will be safeguarded by a new division within the Department of Homeland Security. The database will be crosschecked with databases compiled by the FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. Individuals or citizens whose profile makes them suspect to sympathizing or supporting terrorist actions will be interviewed by the agents from either DHS or FBI. If cleared, the individual is free to continue with their normal cable services. If not cleared, access to news channels will be denied.
The electronic media restrictions are expected to begin by the end of January 2008. The restrictions on broadcast and printed media are expected to take longer to be fully enacted. The House is hoping for voluntary compliance initially, but DHS is prepared to begin witholding federal funds from any states who resist or challenge the bill. House leaders are drafting communications to all fifty governors explaining the bill.
For printed media, the bill calls for all publications to eventually move to a subscriber-only basis by 2009. Until then, those who wish to buy printed media such as newspapers, news magazines, tabloids or any other forms of printed news will simply fill out a brief background information form online. Homeland Security officials expect the background approval to take no longer than ninety minutes. At the completion, if the applicant passes, a PDF e-mail is sent containing a barcode and the applicant's name and social security number. The purchaser presents this small, driver's license size approval ID to the retailer who in turn scans it at the register.
Civil libertarians who only discovered the bill and its passage hours ago are furious. "What's next, a background check for which church or snyagogue someone wants to attend or tithe to?" asked Rudolph Heitzman of the Baltimore American Civil Liberties Union. "I wonder what our Founding Fathers would have to say about this," Heitzman added, noting that "but according to this ridiculous, unconstitutional bill, we'd need a background check first in order to read or hear what our founders would have to say." Heitzman promised an immeidate lawsuit and filing in U.S. District Court first thing next week.
Another House source told Reuters that restrictions on the Constitution and Bill of Rights are nothing new. "We've been making common sense restrictions and changes to the Bill of Rights for the last sixty years," the source who wished to not be identified pointed out. "Very few people complained when we enacted seizure laws to help fight organized crime. A few did initially, but I think they've grown to accept that drastic times require drastic measures."
in the recent years since the World Trade Center attacks, polls conducted by numerous researchers indicated that most Americans were willing to take up increased restrictions on personal liberties and privileges if it meant making things harder for terrorists and criminals. House sources point to this data as the inevitable result of last night's passage of HR2213.
"Americans are tired of living in fear," the House source stated. "We know that our enemies often get much of their information from media sources. In order to safeguard against that, we need to know who is reading what and then learn more about them. Is it a Herculean task? Of course it is, but if you're not a criminal or a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about."
# # # # #
I got the idea for this story based upon this poll, taken right here at TFL. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271838
Amazing that around half or more of the respondents have no problem with restrictions on Constitutionally guaranteed rights. So how would you feel about having to have a national ID card in order to buy a newspaper, subscribe to any sort of news/informational publication and know that your television viewing is being monitored and recorded "all in the interest of national security?"
For me, that thought is scary as hell. But I guess some of you don't mind at all.
Jeff
Last edited:
